lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Helping to once again promote adventure games
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 06-26-2009, 04:24 AM   #1
plamdi.com
Rookie
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 154
Helping to once again promote adventure games

When I purchased SCUMMGAMES.NET it was a very spur of the moment impulse decision.

How am I going to use it?

To promote Adventure Games, primarily. Obviously not everything that I would like will be there initially, but I'm going to use it to (ultimately) 1. distribute freeware/shareware/demos/videos/tools... 2. track and promote new and developing adventure games, 3. provide access to other fan-pleasing material (for instance, shortly before or after MI:SE I will have created DVD artwork, so that everyone who purchases the game can print it, burn the game to disc and put it on their shelf).

But I'm also open to suggestions before I finalize the plan for the website. Any comments?

Oh, and as I'll be using an entirely CSS-based design (yes, I've completely switched to 100% CSS designing - no script, as little html "structure" as is possible) I'm just starting with a simple design that I know I can completely change later very easily - because I think it's more important to get the content complete.
plamdi.com is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-26-2009, 06:25 AM   #2
LordTrilobite
Junior Member
 
LordTrilobite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Holland
Posts: 497
Walkthroughs, trivias, behind the scenes and such, of course these things can always be found on other sites, but it's good to have everything you need in one place.

LordTrilobite is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-26-2009, 07:32 AM   #3
Ascovel
Rookie
 
Ascovel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordTrilobite View Post
Walkthroughs, trivias, behind the scenes and such, of course these things can always be found on other sites, but it's good to have everything you need in one place.
Nah, too much work. It's better to focus on having something special and things you like and know than putting in a bit of everything.

Btw I'd gladly hear your opinions about my own indie adventure gaming blog hardydev.com, plamdi.


A Hardy Developer's Journal - blogging about indie adventure games
Ascovel is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-26-2009, 11:04 AM   #4
Snugglecakes
Junior Member
 
Snugglecakes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 352
Current Game: Mata Hari
Quite a good read of a blog you have there Ascovel
Snugglecakes is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-30-2009, 09:11 AM   #5
plamdi.com
Rookie
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 154
Thanks for the feedback, I'll be sure to check out that blog when I get a chance. The website design is done, and I'm getting the first pages completed... this is one of them:

http://scummgames.net/miposters.php

I've just added my scan of the Classic Tales box while I wait for the complete copy I bought off ebay to arrive. I'll add a few other artwork pages - which will be in HTML 3.2 for the time being until I get a chance to put them into their own correct category and integrate it into the (relatively) simple HTML 4.1+CSS design. They will have their own design in terms of how each downloadable image is presented, hance I haven't designed that yet in CSS - once I have I can remove all the img tags and use a standard list with links in it and use CSS to insert the images - as I've done with all the other images. I'm not completely against img tags, I'd just rather avoid them until they're necessary. Plus I'll probably use an img rollover and the best way in the world to do that is using a single image that you shift the position of as background element so that the browser never has to download an additional image. Thus it's instant and never needs to cache first.

To give you an idea this is the complete HTML:

http://scummgames.net/htmlonly.php

from there it is "transformed" using CSS. This is what it looks like with css (this is the same HTML code, the only thing changed is the style-sheet):

http://scummgames.net/withcss.php

The other two initial pages will be MI:SE and Tales of MI. Then I'll add other developing adventure games, as well as pages on oldies too.

Last edited by plamdi.com; 07-01-2009 at 07:00 AM.
plamdi.com is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-01-2009, 06:09 AM   #6
ThunderPeel2001
Lovebucket
 
ThunderPeel2001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,768
Looking good, although you have a very confusing way of developing websites. (What are you using the PHP for??)

ThunderPeel2001 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-01-2009, 07:12 AM   #7
plamdi.com
Rookie
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 154
Thanks for the feedback!

I don't see what's so confusing about it. It's simple, straightfoward correctly structured HTML and then CSS - nothing could possibly be simpler (except HTML 3.2 that doesn't support CSS... but then writing in tables etc is a more complicated HTML structure anyway). I'm using php (mainly) to insert the links (so I only have to edit one thing to update all pages). Thanks for asking, cause I made a typo in the previous post and wrote "php" instead of "css" (fixed). Same thing with images and php - you change the size of an image and the file with one edit, rather then individually editing the pages.

I may later add XHTML support through php too (I completely detest XHTML being used in place of HTML, I think it's noob, ignorant, useless, stupid, and above all arrogant. Webmasters that don't understand that XHTML is an XML format and not an HTML format shouldn't touch it in the first place - they're like a virus infecting correct coding of webpages. I hate it so very much!)
plamdi.com is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-01-2009, 10:54 AM   #8
ThunderPeel2001
Lovebucket
 
ThunderPeel2001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,768
Good lord... I love XHTML and those that don't code in it don't know what they're doing, IMO. The fact that it's written in XML makes absolutely no difference to anybody anywhere ever.

So, that's what I think.

ThunderPeel2001 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-01-2009, 11:34 AM   #9
s-island
Music man
 
s-island's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,081
The International House of Mojo Staff 
XHTML smells nice.
s-island is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-01-2009, 03:37 PM   #10
Snugglecakes
Junior Member
 
Snugglecakes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 352
Current Game: Mata Hari
XHTML & CSS... the best thing since sliced bread.

I've had a few tries (one very successful) at these fans sites, and found that messing with complicated stuff is a bit of a waste most of the time. For something like Mojo, sure, it's a regularly updated news source and obviously requires database access etc, but for the static sites that most of us should be making (having a news section that never gets updated is worse than not having one at all), rather use simple clever CSS & includes.
Snugglecakes is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-01-2009, 06:11 PM   #11
ThunderPeel2001
Lovebucket
 
ThunderPeel2001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,768
PHP and MySQL is actually really easy, so there's no real reason not to include them if they'd be useful to you.

Well, maybe they're not *really* easy, like if you're new to programming or something, but it's certainly not too difficult.

ThunderPeel2001 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-01-2009, 06:22 PM   #12
ThunderPeel2001
Lovebucket
 
ThunderPeel2001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by plamdi.com View Post
I may later add XHTML support through php too (I completely detest XHTML being used in place of HTML, I think it's noob, ignorant, useless, stupid, and above all arrogant. Webmasters that don't understand that XHTML is an XML format and not an HTML format shouldn't touch it in the first place - they're like a virus infecting correct coding of webpages. I hate it so very much!)
I've got a little more time to properly respond to this now, plamdi. I'm not sure where you got your idea that XHTML isn't HTML from, but you've been misinformed by somebody or something. There's certainly no reason to hate it or the people who use it. I'm sure you'll be pleased to hear that it's not as bad as you thought.

XML is just a series of rules. XHTML is just HTML that follows those rules (all lower case, every opening tag has a closing tag, etc.). They could have called it HTML 5.0, but they didn't. It makes no difference to your browser or to your server or to anyone. XHTML does add some kickass features, too, if you ever decide to use them, and, in theory, it's more future-proofed than older versions of HTML (and it's not even new, it's been around since 2000, so those older versions you're using are even older!).

It's nothing like a virus and there's no reason to hate it.

ThunderPeel2001 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-01-2009, 06:36 PM   #13
s-island
Music man
 
s-island's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,081
The International House of Mojo Staff 
PHP and MySQL give you more than enough rope to hang yourself with, security wise. The trick is to avoid that.

HTML 5 and CSS 3 have some nice features. I look forward to when they're supported by the major browsers. After waiting years for IE to implement SVG, I'm not holding my breath though...
s-island is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-01-2009, 06:44 PM   #14
Thrik
Symbolically Compelling
 
Thrik's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 4,202
Hot Topic Starter Forum Veteran LFN Staff Member 
The W3C has said that it does consider XHTML an updated, better version of HTML 4.01, which resolves a number of issues it felt were present in the language — in fact, for a while they intended it to replace HTML and its implementation via SGML altogether.

So while it is based around XML and is ideally served as such for performance reasons, it's not strictly an XML format. It was specifically designed to be backwards compatible with HTML agents and served as such.

What confuses me a bit more than your petty HTML/XHTML issue is the fact that you use HTML 3.2. Why are you using a standard that the W3C specifically created HTML 4 to replace and is truly antiquated?

Of course, you're not the first guy I've seen find out about the whole 'XHTML should be served as XML' thing and then become an arrogant moron towards anyone who uses XHTML. Ironically, these same types typically got into web standards because of the internet-wide push for XHTML compliance.

Like it or not, XHTML did get people interested in standards compliance; it pretty much abolished the days of tag soup and table-based structure. For that it does not deserve to be detested — and besides, once HTML 5 is finalised and adopted people will naturally transition to that anyway. No harm, no foul.


Thrik is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-02-2009, 04:07 AM   #15
plamdi.com
Rookie
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThunderPeel2001 View Post
I've got a little more time to properly respond to this now, plamdi. I'm not sure where you got your idea that XHTML isn't HTML from, but you've been misinformed by somebody or something.
I got the idea from W3C:

http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/

XHTML 1.0 The Extensible HyperText Markup Language (Second Edition)
A Reformulation of HTML 4 in XML 1.0
W3C Recommendation 26 January 2000, revised 1 August 2002

Quote:
1. What is XHTML?
This section is informative.

XHTML is a family of current and future document types and modules that reproduce, subset, and extend HTML 4 [HTML4]. XHTML family document types are XML based, and ultimately are designed to work in conjunction with XML-based user agents. The details of this family and its evolution are discussed in more detail in [XHTMLMOD].

XHTML 1.0 (this specification) is the first document type in the XHTML family. It is a reformulation of the three HTML 4 document types as applications of XML 1.0 [XML]. It is intended to be used as a language for content that is both XML-conforming and, if some simple guidelines are followed, operates in HTML 4 conforming user agents. Developers who migrate their content to XHTML 1.0 will realize the following benefits:

XHTML documents are XML conforming. As such, they are readily viewed, edited, and validated with standard XML tools.
XHTML documents can be written to operate as well or better than they did before in existing HTML 4-conforming user agents as well as in new, XHTML 1.0 conforming user agents.
XHTML documents can utilize applications (e.g. scripts and applets) that rely upon either the HTML Document Object Model or the XML Document Object Model [DOM].
As the XHTML family evolves, documents conforming to XHTML 1.0 will be more likely to interoperate within and among various XHTML environments.
The XHTML family is the next step in the evolution of the Internet. By migrating to XHTML today, content developers can enter the XML world with all of its attendant benefits, while still remaining confident in their content's backward and future compatibility.
Mind you this was changed in 1.1 where they claimed it is not "backwards-compatible with html". At any rate, here is a fully compliant XHTML page:

http://scummgames.net/xhtmlwcss.php

Please excuse my laziness in not changing the HTML4.01 compliancy icon - click it and you can validate it as XHTML 1.0 Transitional (supposedly the XHTML version cloest to HTML 4.01). You cannot open that page in any browser that does not understand XHTML because it is sent using the correct MIME Type. But, even if sent as text/html it wouldn't open correctly anyway, here is the same page sent using the xtext/html MIME Type:

http://scummgames.net/xhtmlwcss-astexthtml.php

Notice that if you open it in IE6 (or any browser incapable of reading it as an XML document) or even in FireFox the page is completely blank (This is because Firefox ONLY opens it as XML if the correct MIME Type is sent). Test it yourself, the first one will open because its read as XHTML the second one will not because FF is reading it using its HTML pharser. Opera is the only browser that will actually open it as XML.

As before the page validates perfectly:

http://scummgames.net/xhtmlwcss-astexthtml.php

This proves that what is valid in XHTML is not always valid in HTML.

Oh and in case you're wondering what's breaking the HTML compatibility - it's the self-closing script tag <script ... />. It is not understood by HTML parsers that are expecting a </script> to appear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThunderPeel2001 View Post
XML is just a series of rules. XHTML is just HTML that follows those rules (all lower case, every opening tag has a closing tag, etc.). They could have called it HTML 5.0, but they didn't. It makes no difference to your browser or to your server or to anyone. XHTML does add some kickass features, too, if you ever decide to use them, and, in theory, it's more future-proofed than older versions of HTML (and it's not even new, it's been around since 2000, so those older versions you're using are even older!).

It's nothing like a virus and there's no reason to hate it.
No, that's completely false.

This is HTML 5: http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html

That is the exact reason I have every reason to hate it when XHTML is used as HTML. It is an XML format designed to provide HTML functionality in XML - that's it. That's what it is. It isn't HTML, and it's not supposed to be used as HTML that's of no benefit to people using XML-based phasers to read a website.
plamdi.com is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-02-2009, 04:24 AM   #16
plamdi.com
Rookie
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thrik View Post
So while it is based around XML and is ideally served as such for performance reasons, it's not strictly an XML format. It was specifically designed to be backwards compatible with HTML agents and served as such.
I believe that can best be answered by W3C:

http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/xhtml-faq
Quote:
Why is it disallowed to send XHTML 1.1 documents as text/html?

XHTML 1.1 is pure XML, and only intended to be XML. It cannot reliably be sent to legacy browsers. Therefore XHTML 1.1 documents must be sent with an XML-related media type, such as application/xhtml+xml.
Yes they've since "relaxed" that rule due to the fact that XHTML 1.1 was released in 2002 and it hasn't caught on due to the fact that it hasn't been allowed to be sent as html. XHTML 1.0 didn't catch on properly either - as ThunderPeel2001 said there are literally thousands of webmasters out there who think XHTML is an updated form of HTML!
Quote:
What confuses me a bit more than your petty HTML/XHTML issue is the fact that you use HTML 3.2. Why are you using a standard that the W3C specifically created HTML 4 to replace and is truly antiquated?
There's nothing wrong with HTML 3.2, it is simply a much easier and faster version to write.
Quote:
Of course, you're not the first guy I've seen find out about the whole 'XHTML should be served as XML' thing and then become an arrogant moron towards anyone who uses XHTML. Ironically, these same types typically got into web standards because of the internet-wide push for XHTML compliance.
Ah, but as you can see in my previous post I actually do know exactly how to use XHTML properly. I can code it as easily as HTML. And when I do I don't see the point in closing ANY self-closing tags with anything other than /> ever.
plamdi.com is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-02-2009, 04:59 AM   #17
Thrik
Symbolically Compelling
 
Thrik's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 4,202
Hot Topic Starter Forum Veteran LFN Staff Member 
I'm sure you can, because like I said most people who get on their high horse about this kind of thing tend to start with XHTML, then later find out about the technicalities of how it's served and begin chastising others for doing the very thing that got them into web standards in the first place. Maybe that's not your story, but I've seen it enough times in my (considerable) years of doing web development.

With regards to your other stuff, I'll clarify that I was talking about XHTML 1.0 and not 1.1. The W3C is perfectly happy with 1.0 being served as HTML, even if it isn't the optimal way to do it.

It's a slightly confusing topic because the W3C basically changed its stance. It initially considered XHTML a successor to HTML and the future of how websites would be rendered, but later decided to back away from the purely XML route because it was a bit too ambitious to expect people to be able to adhere perfectly at all times — an XML page will completely fail if there're any errors as I'm sure you know. Hence the more recent repositioning of the HTML 5 spec, which is actually both HTML and XHTML in a single specification.

I'm not going to disagree that HTML 4.01 is a good way to build pages, but I really hate it when I see people going around and dissing people because they've made the effort to start writing structured, coherent, semantic code. Even if XHTML isn't necessary to do that, the fact it's encouraged many, many people to do it is nothing but good IMO.

In short: stop being such a snob!


Thrik is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-02-2009, 05:21 AM   #18
ThunderPeel2001
Lovebucket
 
ThunderPeel2001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,768
Interesting stuff! But it doesn't change anything I said (or make it wrong, either). I didn't know about HTML 5 (it's so new!), but coding in XHTML makes no practical difference to the user, and helps the designer, so where's the problem exactly?

As I said before, using the XML parts allows you to do some pretty nifty stuff, too, if you feel like it. You can essentially skip PHP and MySQL and use XML to construct your pages on the fly based on input from the user, for example. (Of course you can't write anything back to the "database", as it were, but in your case this isn't necessary.)


Last edited by ThunderPeel2001; 07-02-2009 at 05:27 AM.
ThunderPeel2001 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-02-2009, 05:55 AM   #19
QueZTone
mind il creativo
 
QueZTone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 779
lot's of talk, little sugar

more sugar please!

QueZTone is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-02-2009, 08:14 AM   #20
plamdi.com
Rookie
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thrik View Post
With regards to your other stuff, I'll clarify that I was talking about XHTML 1.0 and not 1.1. The W3C is perfectly happy with 1.0 being served as HTML, even if it isn't the optimal way to do it.
When you write XHTML you're supposed to be thinking "XML" not "HTML". All XML documents, as I'm sure you're aware, should begin with the XML declaration. That alone breaks compatability with HTML browsers. Next after the XML declaration comes the XHTML doctype.
Quote:
It's a slightly confusing topic because the W3C basically changed its stance. It initially considered XHTML a successor to HTML and the future of how websites would be rendered, but later decided to back away from the purely XML route because it was a bit too ambitious to expect people to be able to adhere perfectly at all times an XML page will completely fail if there're any errors as I'm sure you know.
Yes I know. The advantage of XML over HTML is that you don't need a highly complicated purpose-written browser to read it; as XML is much much more simple. That said, HTML 4.x and XHTML are fully compatible with CSS which allows for continuity between pages (you can make the same design in both HTML and XHTML). The entire purpose of XHTML isn't to succeed HTML - it is to allow XML-based client software to read the page.

I reiterate my point - incorrect usage of XHTML is noob and does not help anyone.
Quote:
I'm not going to disagree that HTML 4.01 is a good way to build pages, but I really hate it when I see people going around and dissing people because they've made the effort to start writing structured, coherent, semantic code. Even if XHTML isn't necessary to do that, the fact it's encouraged many, many people to do it is nothing but good IMO.

In short: stop being such a snob!
Because it's not writing XHTML it's writing HTML with errors that has an XHTML doctype. An XHTML page is readable by XML-based pharsers... not a page that Opera opens and interperates as XHTML (because it could have read it using its HTML pharser).
plamdi.com is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-02-2009, 08:32 AM   #21
s-island
Music man
 
s-island's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,081
The International House of Mojo Staff 
Quote:
All XML documents, as I'm sure you're aware, should begin with the XML declaration. That alone breaks compatability with HTML browsers. Next after the XML declaration comes the XHTML doctype.
XML, yes, but not necessarily with XHTML. As W3C says:
Quote:
An XML declaration is not required in all XML documents; however XHTML document authors are strongly encouraged to use XML declarations in all their documents. Such a declaration is required when the character encoding of the document is other than the default UTF-8 or UTF-16 and no encoding was determined by a higher-level protocol.
and
Quote:
...some user agents interpret the XML declaration to mean that the document is unrecognized XML rather than HTML, and therefore may not render the document as expected. For compatibility with these types of legacy browsers, you may want to avoid using processing instructions and XML declarations.
Hell, they even have a section with guidelines on how to make your XML document work with HTML parsers. If W3C says it's okay, it's okay.
s-island is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-02-2009, 08:55 AM   #22
Fealiks
NAMBLA member
 
Fealiks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Britain
Posts: 2,202
All these strange acronyms... my mind... I can't... process... argh
Fealiks is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-02-2009, 08:58 AM   #23
LordTrilobite
Junior Member
 
LordTrilobite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Holland
Posts: 497
The mind boggles.

LordTrilobite is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-02-2009, 09:06 AM   #24
plamdi.com
Rookie
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 154
BUT, and I stress this point STRONGLY, W3C in context talks about how to make it HTML-compatible as secondary to being XML:
Quote:
Why is it allowed to send XHTML 1.0 documents as text/html?
XHTML is an XML format; this means that strictly speaking it should be sent with an XML-related media type (application/xhtml+xml, application/xml, or text/xml). However XHTML 1.0 was carefully designed so that with care it would also work on legacy HTML user agents as well. If you follow some simple guidelines, you can get many XHTML 1.0 documents to work in legacy browsers. However, legacy browsers only understand the media type text/html, so you have to use that media type if you send XHTML 1.0 documents to them. But be well aware, sending XHTML documents to browsers as text/html means that those browsers see the documents as HTML documents, not XHTML documents.
I'd use a PHP function for this:
PHP Code:
  $usexhtml=stristr($_SERVER['HTTP_ACCEPT'],'application/xhtml+xml');
  if(
$usexhtml && preg_match("/text\/html;q=0(\.[1-9]+)/i",$_SERVER["HTTP_ACCEPT"],$qtest2)){
    if(
preg_match("/application\/xhtml\+xml;q=0(\.[1-9]+)/i",$_SERVER["HTTP_ACCEPT"],$qtest1))
      
$usexhtml=($qtest1[1]>=$qtest2[1]);
    else
      
$usexhtml=false;
  }
  if (
$usexhtml) {
    
$conttype='application/xhtml+xml';
  }
  else {
    
$conttype='text/html';
  }
  
header('Content-type: '$conttype); 
plamdi.com is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-02-2009, 09:12 AM   #25
Fealiks
NAMBLA member
 
Fealiks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Britain
Posts: 2,202
It's so crazy it just might work!
Fealiks is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-02-2009, 09:14 AM   #26
ThunderPeel2001
Lovebucket
 
ThunderPeel2001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,768
I ask again: Writing in XHTML makes no practical difference to the user, and helps the designer, so where's the problem exactly?

ThunderPeel2001 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-02-2009, 05:14 PM   #27
plamdi.com
Rookie
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 154
XHTML does make a practicle difference to the user - it allows XML-based applications to browse the site.
plamdi.com is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-02-2009, 06:09 PM   #28
ThunderPeel2001
Lovebucket
 
ThunderPeel2001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,768
So there's no reason not to use it, then.

ThunderPeel2001 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-05-2009, 02:18 AM   #29
plamdi.com
Rookie
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 154
No, because it has to be sent as an XML document (that is using the application/xml MIME type) ... IF you're only sending it as an HTML document then there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to use XHTML (as already stated, XHTML is a reformulation of HTML 4.01 in XML it is not HTML). The PHP function I wrote above basically does this:

1. Does client software accept XHTML?
IF YES -->
2. Does client software indicate a "q-vale" for it?
3. IF Yes then compare against HTML q-value if relevant, if No then assume XHTML is preferred.

I haven't tested it but I can't see why it wouldn't work (though keep in mind it has to be at the very top of your document before any data transmission has commenced).
plamdi.com is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-05-2009, 09:03 AM   #30
ThunderPeel2001
Lovebucket
 
ThunderPeel2001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,768
There are definitely benefits to writing in strict XHTML: Validation will show that your code is better formed. Ie. properly nested, always have closing tags. I personally think this improves maintainability. HTML 4.01 is sloppy by comparison and maintaining code that's poorly written, but verified HTML 4.01, can be a nightmare.

That, in itself, is a very good reason that everyone should be writing in XHTML, if you ask me. It makes no difference to the designer or to the user if the file is sent via XML or not, provided the page is displayed as intended by the designer.

ThunderPeel2001 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-12-2009, 02:05 AM   #31
purple_tentacle_
Junior Member
 
purple_tentacle_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California, United States
Posts: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by plamdi.com View Post
When I purchased SCUMMGAMES.NET it was a very spur of the moment impulse decision.

How am I going to use it?

To promote Adventure Games, primarily. Obviously not everything that I would like will be there initially, but I'm going to use it to (ultimately) 1. distribute freeware/shareware/demos/videos/tools... 2. track and promote new and developing adventure games, 3. provide access to other fan-pleasing material (for instance, shortly before or after MI:SE I will have created DVD artwork, so that everyone who purchases the game can print it, burn the game to disc and put it on their shelf).

But I'm also open to suggestions before I finalize the plan for the website. Any comments?

Oh, and as I'll be using an entirely CSS-based design (yes, I've completely switched to 100% CSS designing - no script, as little html "structure" as is possible) I'm just starting with a simple design that I know I can completely change later very easily - because I think it's more important to get the content complete.
This is going to be good. You need to put a forum on it (If there isnt one already) and I think every good website should have walkthroughs and reviews.


http://www.lucasforums.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=162626&dateline=12954  72528
"The Simple truth is that we've
lost control of our own borders,
and no nation can do that and survive"
-Ronald Reagan
purple_tentacle_ is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > Mixnmojo.com > Mojo Discussion Forums > General Discussion > Helping to once again promote adventure games

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:22 PM.


LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.